.u 



HolUnger Corp. 
pH8.5 



:•:•;•**:-:•;■ 



Vv 

S 699 

L5 
I Copy 1 







iftm 



BEF-ORID the: 



ON THE PETITION OF 

JOHN C. BIRDSELL. 

Fo7' an ,Iet aivthorizirig tJic Connnisftioner of Patents iu 
hear and determine his Application for Exten- 
sion of his Letters- Patent for 

MACHINERY for HULLING and THRESHING CLOVER. 



ARGUMENT FOR THE PETITIONER, 
^ / By WELLS W. LEGGETT, 



His Attorney. 



Hon. JOHN A. J. CRESWELL, 
Hon. MONTGOMERY BLAIR, 
Hon. M. D. LEGGETT, 
JOHN E. HATCH, Esq., 

Counsel. 



Tl.nnios Mf&lll A Co., Printers, 1107 E Street. Washington, P 



ox THE 

PETITION OF JOHN C. BIRDSELL, 



Act to authorize the Commissioner of Patents to hear and Oe- 
termiae his Application for an Extension of his Letters- 
Patent for Machinery for Hulling and 
Threshing Clover. 



ARGUMENT FOR ITIE PEITTIONER. 

This is a petition for an act to confer upon the Commis- 
sioner of Patents the power to consider an application for an 
extension of a patent, in all respects similar to the power he 
exercised under the act of July 8, 1870. 

That act provides for a publication of notice of the appli- 
cation for sixty days ; also, for a thorough investigation as to 
the novelty and originality of the invention ; for the regular 
examination and cross-examination of witnesses in case of 
opposition ; and for a full hearing as to the novelty, utilit3% 
and propriety of the extension in respect to the public inter- 
ests, and whether ornot the inventor, after having used proper 
diligence, had been sufficiently remunerated. 

The sections of the act relating to extensions are as 
follows: 

REVISED STATUTES. 

Sec. 4!)24. Wiicrc the. puteiilce of aii_y iiiveiitioii or di^Jcovery, tlie 
patent for whi(;li was; <;rant('(l prior to the second dav- of Mardi. eis^htecn 
liinidred and si;vry-niii>, shall dc-iirc an extension of this patent bej'ond 
the ori<^in;il term of it< limitation, he shall make application therefor in 
writino- to the Connnissioner of Patents, set tin": forth the reasons vvhj'' 
such extension slionid I)e granted ; and he shall also fnrnish a written 
statement under oath of tln'. asceitained value of the invention or dis- 
covery, and of his receipts and expenditures on account then'of. sufli- 
ciently in detail loexiiihit a true and faithful acMjountof the loss and profit 
in any m inner accniiiiL;" to him by reason of tlw invention or di-cover}-. 
Such application shall l»e tiled not more than six nionrlis nor h^ss than 
ninety d;iys before the expiration of llie oriii'inal term of tne patent ; and 
no extension shall be <ifiant(Nl after the expiration of the ori<;inal term. 



2 

Sec. 4925. Upon the receipt of such application and tiie pa}inent of 
the fees required by law, tlie Comniissiouer siiall cause to be published 
in one newspaper in tlie citj' of Washington, and in such otiiei- papeis 
published in the section of tiie couutr}^ most interested adversely to the 
extension of the patent as he may deem proper, for at least sixty days 
prior to tlie day set for liearinjr tlie case, a notice of such application, 
and of tiie time and place wlieii and wiiere tlie same will be considered, 
that any person may appear and show cause why the extension shonkl 
not be granted. 

Sec. 4926. Upon the publication of the notice of an application for an 
extension, the Commissioner shall* refer tiie case to the principal ex- 
aminer havingcharge o^ the class of inventions to which it belongs, who 
shall make the Commissioner a full report of the case, stating particu- 
larly whether the invention or discovery was new and patentable when 
the original patent was granted. 

Sec. 4927. The Commissioner shall, at tlie time and i)lnce designated 
in the published notice, hear and decide upon the evidence produced 
both for and against the extension ; and if it shall ai)pear to the satis- 
faction of the Commissioner that the patentee, without neglect or fault 
on his part, has failed to obtain from the use and sale of his inventiou or 
discovery a reasonable remuneration for the time, ingeiuiity. and ex- 
pense bestowed ujioii it, and the introduction of it into use. and that it 
is just and proper, having due regard to the public interest, that the 
term of the patent should be extended, the Comniissioii(>r shall make a 
certificate thereon, reiiewino- and extending the patent for the term of 
seven years from the expii-ation of the first term. Such certilicate shall 
be recorded in the Patent Office; and thereupon such jiatent shall have 
the same effect in law as though it had been originally granted for 
twenty-one years. 

The Patent Office rules of practice under the act read as 
follows : 

RULES. 

71. Any person may oppose an application for extension, but must 
give notice of such intention to the ajiplicaut or his attorney of record 
within the time hereafter named, and furnish him with a statement of 
Ills reasons of opposition. After this he will be regarded as a party in 
the case, and will be entitled to notice of the time' and ])lace of taking 
testimony, to a list of the names and residences of the witnesses whose 
testimony may have been taken previous to his service of notice of oppo- 
sition, and to a copy of the a|)pliealion and of any iiapers on file, upon 
paying the cost of copying. He must also immediately file a copv of 
such notice and reasons of opposition, with proof of service of the same, 
in the Patent OfUce. 

If the extension is opposed on the ground of lack of novelty in the 
invention, the reasons of opi)osition should contain a si)ecific statement 
of any and all matter relied upon for this jiuriiose. 

72. The aiiplicaiit for an extension must fmnisli to the Office a state- 
ment, in writing, under oath, of tiie ascertained value of the invention, 
and of his receipts and expenditures on account thereof. ])()th in tiiis and 
foreign countries. This statement must be made particular and in de- 
tail, unless sufficient reason is set forth why such a statement cannot be 
furnisiied. It must in all cases be fihnl with the petition. No excep- 
tions will be made to this rule. 

Such statement must also be accomi)anied with a ccriified ahslrad of 
title and u declaration, inider oath, setting forth the extent of appli- 
cant's interest in the extension sought. 



73. The questions which arise on each application for an extension 
are — 

First. Was the invention new and useful when patented? 

Second. Is it calanhle ii\n] important to the public, and to what extent? 

Third. Has the inventor been reaso)iubhi remuneraied for the time, 
ina,'ennity, and expense. bestowed upon it, and the introdnctioii of it into 
use? If not, lias his failure to be so remunerated arisen from neglect or 
fault on his part? 

Fourth. What will be the eftect of the proposed extension upon the 
public interests? 

No proof will be required from the applicant upon the first question, 
unless the invention is assailed upon those points by opporients. 

To enable the Commissioner to come to a correct conclusion in regard 
to the second point of inquiry, the applicant must, if possible, procure 
the testimony of persons disinterested in the invention, which testimony 
should be taken under oath. This testimoiu/ must distinguish carefully 
between, the specific devices covered by the claims of the j)atent and the 
general machine in which those devices may be incorporated. 

In regard to the third jjoint of inquiry, in addition to his own oath, 
showing his receipts and expenditures on account of tiie invention, the 
applicant must siiow, by testimony und(;r oath, tiiat he has taken all 
reasonable measures to inti'oduce his invention into general use; and 
that, without neglect or fault on his part, he has failed to obtain from 
the use and sale of the invention a reasonable remuneration for the 
time, ingenuitv, and expense bestowed on tiie same, and the introduc- 
tion of it into use. 

74. In ease of opposition to the extension of a patent by anj' person, 
both parties may take testimony, each giving reasonable notice to the 
other of the time and place of taking said testimony, which shall be 
taken according to tiie rules hereinafter prescribed. 

75. xVny person desiring to oppose an extension must serve his notice 
of opposition, and tile his reasons tiierefor, at least ten days before tlie 
day fixed for the closing of testimony ; but parties wiio have not entered 
formal opposition in time to put in testimony, may, at tiie discretion of 
the Commissioner, b(! permitted to appear on the day of hearing, and 
make ai'gnment upon tiie record in opposition to tlie grant of the ex- 
tension. But in such case good cause for tlie neglect to make formal 
opposition must be shown. 

7G. In contested cases no testimony will be received, unless by con- 
sent, which has been taken within thirty days next after the tiling of 
the ])etition for the extension. 

77. Service of notice to taki; testimony may be made upon applicant, 
upon the opponent, upon tlie attorney of record of either, or, if there 
be no attorney of record, upon any attorney or agent who tak<'s part in 
the service of notice, or in the examination of the witnesses of either 
party. Where notice to take testimony has already been given to an 
oi)poneiit, and a new opponent subsequently gives notice of his intention 
to oppose, the examination need not be postponed, but notice thereof 
may be given to siicli subsequent opponent by mail or by telegraph. 
This rule, however, does not aiiply to ex-parte examinations, or tiiose of 
which no notice lias been given wlieu notice of opposition is served. 

78. In tlie notice of the application for an extension a day will be 
fixed for the closing of testimony, and the day of hearing will also be 
named. Application for a postponement of the day of hearing, or for 
further time for taking testimony, nuist be made anil supported accord- 
inu' to the same rules iis are to beobserveil in other contested cases; but 
they will not be granted in siicli a manner as to cause a risk of prevent- 
inga decision prior to the exi)iratiou of the patent. Immediately upon 
the closing of the testimony the application will be referred to the e.x- 



jimiiiei- ia cliiirii-c of tin; class to wliicli tlie iiiveiitioii beloiii^s for the 
rcpoit ivquiii'il l)y law; and said rcpoit shall ])i' made not less than five 
days before the day of heannii". As this repoi-t is intended for tiie 
information of the Commissionei-, neither the parties nor their attorneys 
will he i)ermitt<'d to make oral aroimients before the examiner. In con- 
tested cases briefs are deemed desirable, and tjiese shonld always be 
filed at least five days before the day of hearini^-. 

These are followed by stringent rules, from 113 to 118, for 
taldng and transmitting testimony. 

There is no principle of law involved in this matter. It is 
simply a question of fact whether the patentee has, without 
fault or neglect on his own part, been deprived of the bene- 
fits of the grant made to him by the Government. And if 
through no fault of his own, the patentee has met with such 
insurmountable obstacles and circums'tances as not to have de- 
rived any adequate remuneration for an invention which has 
greatly benefited the pul>Iic, Congress has uniformly either 
granted to him an additional term or authorized him to apply to 
the Commissioner, in order that upon a proper showing under 
the law he might be given an extended term. 

Hence, in order to secure the requisite enactment, it is 
only necessary to show to Congress that the facts are such, 
if established before the Commissionei", as to warrant such 
an extension. 

What are the Facts ? 

1. That the device was novel and useftd'is shown by the grant 
itself, by the reissue in 1862, by the extension in 1872, and 
by the decree of the United States Circuit Court, Justice 
Swayne presiding, after a long and exhaustive contest with 
infringers. 

2. The utility of the invention is shoiim also h;i these striking 
facts. Before the iriventiou clover was gathered in the field, 
or the heads were detached from the stems in the field by a 
stripper ; afterwards the seed was trampled or flailed out on 
the barn floor ; the heads and chaft' were then bolted to re- 
move the stems that were not readily raked out, and the mass 
afterwards passed through a huller to get out and clean the 
seed; — three or four distinct operations, requiring several 



handling's, many assistants, and muclitime and labor. Bird- 
sell then made his machine, which did the whole work of 
threshing from the long straw, separating the straw from the 
heads, hulling, cleaning, and gathering the seed all at one 
single operation. The cost of gdiiw/ out the seed loas thereby 
reduced one to two dollars a bushel. The benetitsto the country 
were incalculable. It brought clover-seed within the range 
of all formers, rich and poor alike. The reduction in price 
increased the number of customers, and a great clover-seed- 
producing industry was established in various sections of the 
country. Farmers generally, who before could not aflbrd it, 
could afterwards purchase seed to sow, and after gathering a 
profitable crop of seed turn under the clover to renew and 
recuperate the soil, and it is now the general custom to sow 
clover for this purpose once in three or five years in the ro- 
tation of crops. Clover, consequently, is now recognized as 
the cheapest and most universalh'-used fertilizer. 

3. The inventor, the patentee, has not derived any remuneration 
for his invention, nor for his time, ingenuity, and expense bestowed 
upon it, and his efforts to introduce in into public use. 

This is established fully by the account submitted in Mr. 
Birdsell's sworn petition, the affidavits of his sons, of his 
banker, his indorsers, and others. 

Petition. 
Affidavit.— J. B. Birdsell. 
B. A. Birdsell. 
" Geo. W. Glover, 

" Miller, Stanfield, and others. 

The account sul^nitted shows that his expenditures on 
accoiuit of the patent have exceeded his receipts from the 
same source about $73,809. 

Yet it has been the uniform practice to reward the in- 
ventor by an extension, even though a handsome profit has 
been derived, (but where the invention has been of great value 
and importance to the pubhc,) as instanced by the following 
cases that came before the Commissioner of Patents : 



Maj' 5, 18(!!).. Brown, Soed-planter Pi'oflts S30,000. Exteiidetl. 

Dec. 1, 1870.. Woodruff, Car-seats " 20,000. " 

Dec. 10, 1870.. Wriglit,Upliolstery.spriii«,-s. " 30,000. " 

Dec. 15, 1870.. Khigslaud, Paper-pulp " 5,000. " 

Dee. 16, 1870.. Goodell, cutting veneers " 6,145. " 

June 24, 1871.. Lovvthrop, Bridges, worth 

to tlie public but 650,000 to 

$70,000, realized " 20,000. " 

Oct. 9, 1871.. Towue, Chain-machine " 9,853.44 

M'ch 10, 1873.. Putnam, Cork-fastener " 21.000. 

July 27, 1872.. II. & F. Blandy, Engine " 9,000. 

Aug. 20, 1872.. AVaterman, tempering Wire. " 35,000. " 

Dec. 24, 1873.. Sturtevant, Veneer-cutter... " 50,000. " 

Jan. 20, 1873.. Lewis, Horse-shoe machine. " 5,000. " 
June 3, 1874.. Fuller, Tuck-marker — proht 

$73,000, and $43,000 for 

his time; total '' 116,000. " 

4. The fidlure to derive remuneration ivas through no fault of 
his own. His exertions have been unparalleled, and the ob- 
stacles, the aggravations, the conspiracies have been insur- 
mountable within the time limited, and without precedent in 
the history of inventions. 

His patent was in the agricultural line, and had its birth 
in 1858, in the midst of the great financial embarrassments 
which convulsed the country, and so disastrously affected all 
the agricultural, and especially the manufacturing, interests 
throughout the land. 

At the outset manufacturers of other agricultural imple- 
ments, with their agents, had the field, and he had to come 
in direct competition with them everywhere. His machines 
were necessarily expensive, and it was easy for such parties 
to deter farmers and others from purchasing his new and 
Untried invention. He exhibited it at numerous State and 
county fairs, at great expense. He was making some ma- 
chines, but his debts were already harassing him. In April, 
1864, his oflice at Henrietta, Kew York, was fired, destroy- 
ing his books and accounts, and partially destroying the 
building. In August, 1864, his whole store-house at Hen- 
rietta was fired and destroyed, burning up his tools, ma- 
chinery, stock, &c., and destroying twenty-three machines 
and over fiity frame-w^orks. This property was his security, 



upon the strength of which he had founded a business credit 
that had enabled him to struggle along against debts and the 
vicissitudes of business. Finding the business so difficult at 
Henrietta, he moveel his family and part of his property to 
South Bend, Indiana ; but in April, 1865, he sutfered great 
loss again by the burning of the balance of his books and 
accounts at the St. Joseph Hotel fire at South Bend. Then 
again in September, 1867, his office-books and accounts were 
all destroyed by fire. 

The war followed within two or three years after the grant 
of his patent, and clover machines were not in demand. 
The whole attention of farmers was devoted to the raising of 
grain, and the devastation throughout the South and West 
after the war necessitated grain, and not clover, as the prin- 
cipal crop until 1867 and 1868. Infringers had sprung up, 
and in 1863 he was obliged to l)ring a suit against the St. 
Joseph Iron Company of Mishawauka, Indiana, wherein he 
obtained decree and injunction. He had to defend a two- 
year suit against him by E. "W. Collins of Chili, New York, 
beginning in 1864. He pleaded his patent, and made other 
defenses, and the decree was again in his favor in 1866. In 
1867 he had to sue Charles Wliittaker of Chelsea, Michigan, 
for infringement, and won the suit and enjoined the defend- 
ant, but no account was taken. 

Beginning with a general financial panic, crippled by the 
war, a victim of four fires, and necessarily a contestant in 
three suits for infringement, it is scarcely necessary to say 
that he was largely in debt ; but the business picking up in 
1869 and 1870, they deemed it advisable to borrow money, 
and tax their business credit to erect large works at South 
Bend in 1871, and did so. But he was ah-eady at the end of 
his patent, and in the beginning of 1872 he was obliged to 
seek un extension before the Commissioner. His troubles 
before that time were a mere bagatelle to what he encountered 
thereafter. 

A powerful combination of infringers was formed to oppose 
his extension. This combination contributed equally to carry 
on the contest, and he was obliged to expend upwards of 
112,500 beforeiie finally succeeded in obtaining liis extension. 



The Commissioner decided in his favor, and extended his 
patent. 

This same com])ination then assumed the role of a con- 
spiracy to wrest the invention from the petitioner. They 
flooded the market with their machines, they cut down their 
prices, and sold machines on long time, and with disregard 
of the financial responsilnlity of the purchasers ; in fact, any- 
thing to prevent the petitioner and his company from making 
sales, and to oblige them to carry their machines in the 
market unsold. They even went so far as to guarantee their 
machines against this identical patent sought to be extended, 
so as to induce purchasers, dealers, and agents to disregard 
Mr. Birdsell's rights, and pay no attention to his cautions and 
warnings against infringers. 

Mr. Birdsell was obliged to bring suit against these in- 
fringers, and began in the United States Circuit Court for 
the northern district of Ohio by suing McDonald & Co., of 
Wooster, Ohio, and the Ashland Machine Company, of Ash- 
land, Ohio. The combination, as stated in the petition, con- 
sisted of the defendants in the above two cases, McConnell, 
Eaymond & Co., of Tecumseh, Michigan ; Garr, Scott & Co., 
of Eichmond, Ind. ; Eussell & Co., of Massillon, Ohio; Glen 
& Hall Manufacturing Company, of Rochester, N. Y. ; George 
Westi7ighouse & Co., of Schenectady, jSi. Y.; and the Hagers- 
town Agricultural Implement Manufacturing Company, of 
Hagerstown, Maryland. This was an actual conspiracy, as 
shown by the testimony of the parties themselves in the Ohio 
cases. See testimony of Eugene Glen, of the Rochester 
Company, Ohio Record, p. 227 : 

Cross-Ques. 20. "What persons, firms, or corporations, sig- 
nified to you a desire to join the opposition to said application 
for said extension ? 

Ans. George "Westinghouse & Co., Raymond, ]McConnell 
& Co., and Garr, Scott & Co. directly; and Messrs. Russell & 
Co., and Mr. David Whiting, through Garr, Scott k Co. 

H. Raymond, of the Michigan Co. (0. R., p. 520.) 
_ Cross-Q. 2. Do you or your firm contribute to the expenses 
of defending these suits ? 
Ans. Wo do. 



9 

Cross- Q. o. What is your iigret'iiicnt in relation to that? 

Ans. We ao;reed to join with the others in seeing the ter- 
mination of this suit. 

Cross-Q. 4. What proportion of the expenses do von pay ? 

Ans. Equal proportion with the others. 

Oross-Q. 5. What others? 

Ans. I don't know that I can reniemhcr them all ; Garr, 
Scott & Co., Kussell & Co., McDonald & Co., Whiting & Co., 
Jones & Miller, (of Ilagerstown.) Westinghouse & Co., — this 
is all I remend)er. 

Angus McDonald, of the Wooster Oo. (0. 11., p. 329.) 
Cross-Q. 95. Who besides your own tirni are assisting in 
this litigation, or contrilmte to the expense thereof? 
(Witness iirst refused, but tinally answered.) 
Ans. Ilagerstown Agricultural Implement Manufacturing 
Company; McConnell, Raymond & Co., of Tecumseh, Mich- 
igan ; Russell & Cb., of Massillon ; Garr, Scott & Co., Rich- 
mond, Indiana ; G. Westinghouse & Co., Schenectady, New 
York. This suit and the one against the Ashland Manufac- 
turing Company are lieing defended jointly by the same 
counsel, and of course that tirm contributes to the expense. 

The parties to this powerful coml)ination contributed 
equally in money and means to the defense of the said Ohio 
suits. The boast was made that they would crusli Mr. Bird- 
sell with money, and would law him until liis patent ex[tired 
and until he was bankrupt. 

(See atHdavits of J. II. Baker, now Member of Congress 
from Indiana ; also those of Glover, J. B. Birdsell, E. St. 
John, and B. A. Birdsell.) 

They kept themselves informed of Mr, BirdseU's thickening 
eml)arrassments by a spy, one of BirdseU's otfi(;o employes, 
and they knew, as that man stated, that Mr, Birdsell was 
deeply in del)t and his bankruptcy was imminent, and with 
the hope and expectation of consunnnating liis ruin they com- 
pelled liim to an expenditure of about $65,000 before a 
decision was rendered in his favor by Justice Xoah II. Swayne, 
in 1871:; but the final decree was not made until 1877. En 
the meantime, he brought suit against all of the i)artics con- 
stituting the condiination, and obtained injunctions against 
all of them ; but he did not succeed in this until they had so 
flooded the market with their machines that there was no 
2 



10 

demand for any more, and Mr. Birdsell had to close up his 
works during the whole of the seasons of 1873-'74-'75, 
and only sold a few machines that he had carried over, and 
others that had been partially constructed. 

To add to his distress, the two companies he had sued and 
the Glen & Hall Co., one of the co-contributors, failed before 
final decree could be obtained, and made assignments, and 
Mr. Birdsell obtained nothing from them to relieve the 
enormous debt of over $130,000 with which he had become 
burdened. 

It is a significant circumstance that the whole community 
at South Bend had become interested for Mr. Birdsell in his 
unequal fight against such an array of power, influence, and 
capital, and that when he finally obtained his decree at Cleve- 
land, Ohio, and the news wastelegraphed to South Bend, the 
popular sympathy in his behalf found vent in a general dis- 
play of flags throughout the city, the ringing of bells, and the 
simultaneous blowing of their whistles by all the manufac- 
turing estabUshments for half an hour. 

It was greatly through the strong sympathy felt for Mr. 
Birdsell by the people among whom he lived, and the confi- 
dence ins})ired by his honest, persistent character, which gave 
him the ci-edit that enabled him to carry on the contest. But 
\v\n\e he had triumphed in the protracted litigation that had 
so touched the feelings of tlie whole community in which he 
lived, because it was known to be a life and death struggle 
of an honest and impoverished man against a most formida- 
ble organization bent on his destruction, the struggle was 
not over, — he had to resort to further litigation to derive 
any benefit from the triumph. His shops were closed. The 
market had been flooded with long-lived machines by his 
opponents. He could regain the market onl}' by proceeding 
against those who were using the infringing machines to 
enjoin the use or compel payment for it. Under ordinary 
circumstances he would have been loath to pursue this 
course ; but he had first sued and shut up all the manufactu- 
rers ; had, in fact, driven them into Ijankruptcy, and there- 
fore tliey had been unable to meet his claims or reimburse 
him for the great expenses of his litigation. Moreover, the 



11 

users had not piirclias(?d innocently, but tliey had purchased 
with their eyes open, upon guarantees against Mr. Birdsell's 
patent, electing to rely upon their guarantors. It was not 
until 1876, after Mr. Birdsell had brought several hundred 
such suits, that he did a "reasonable business, which, being 
continued in 1877, enabled him to discharge a part of the 
immense del^t which had accunmlated during his long 
struggle. 

J3ut having at last gained a comparatively unmolested 
market, and being Ibr the iirst time in the way of reaping 
some benetit from his invention, he has arrived at the end of 
the term of his patent, and will derive no advantage from 
his hard-fought-for rights, unless he be permitted to enjoy 
them by an extension of the patent. 

The public cannot be injuriously alfected by the grant of 
this extension. It is the policy of the law to encourage the 
development of the arts by granting to the inventor of a 
new and useful device, for a limited period, the exclusive 
right to his invention. See Justice Swayne's opinion, an- 
nexed to the petition : 

" Inventors are a meritorious class of men. They are not 
monopolists in the odious sense of that term. They take 
nothing from the public. They contribute largely to its 
wealth and comfort. Patent laws are founded on the policy 
of giving to them remuneration for the fruits enjoyed by 
others of their labor and their genius." 

The extension of this patent will not injuriously affect the 
price of the machines in the market. The machines are cum- 
bersome and bulky; the}* require special machinery in their 
productions ; and in order to sell them at their present ligures, 
and with a fair maro-in, thev must be manufactured as a 
specialty by an establishment organized to that end. This 
can only be done under the protection of a patent. Should 
the patent expire, such a specialty could not be supported ; 
the manufacturer of machines would descend to the level of 
odd jobs at increased cost of production, while the enlarged 
conniiissions to agents, owing to competition, the proportion- 
ately greater expenses of advertising, &c., would unquestion- 
ablv have the effect to increase rather than to reduce their 



12 

cost to the public and degi-iule the character of the workman- 
ship. It is, therefore, not a question as between the patentee 
and the pubUc, but only as between the patentee — ^who has 
given the best part of his hfe, his energies and his means to 
the invention, perfection, development, and introduction of 
the machines — and other manufacturers who have done noth- 
ino- to effect those ends. 

The testimony shows that Mr. Birdsell has not had the 
benetit of his invention except for the past and a part of the 
preceding year. From the time he succeeded in bringing it 
into notice, and its advantages became recognized, his in- 
vention was seized upon by a number of powerful manu- 
facturing companies, who put more machines into the market 
than all he had been able to sell. Their operations were 
arrested only by the expenditure ol more money than he had 
received for all he had built himself. It is only in the last 
years of the term for which the exclusive right was granted 
to him by the law, that his protection has become a reality. 
Nor is this due to any fault, or want of diligence, or want of 
determination on his part in the assertion of his rights. The 
multitude of suits instituted by him, and the vast sums ex- 
pended in the prosecution of them by JVIr. Birdsell, as well 
as the bankruptcy wdiich he has visited upon the once power- 
ful and wealthy companies which undertook to law him out 
of his rights, sufficiently indicate the patience, vigilance, and 
firmness with which he has maintained them. 

This explains why he has not had the benefits Avhich the 
law intended he should derive for the great mental and bod- 
ily labor he has given for the last twenty years to the inven- 
tion, perfection, construction, and introduction of one of the 
most useful machines known to the farmer. 
Respectfullj, 

Wells "W. Leggett, 

Ationic)/ for Vetitioner. 

Hon. John A. J. Creswell, 
Hon. Montgomery Blair, 
Hon. M. D. Leggett, 
John E. Hatch, Esq., J 



^- Counsel. 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



002 758 790 2 ^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



DD0E75fl7'^D2 



